article: loyalty

[narby]

Your entire point in that response was that ball games have not been around for centuries, which they clearly have. Perhaps you need to go read some history books instead of making brash attempts at being clever and entertaining."



actually I think I pulled it off rather well. you are trying to win this argument by changing what I said (i think), and I will defeat thou by showing thine flawed logic (was that right?); my entire point in my response was that he is an idiot, because he is basically saying that modern day mass spectator sports, which can be compared to online gaming leagues, have operating for hundreds of years. that is not right, because these sports have become what they are in the last hundred years, with the creation of television and the internet.



"As for spectator sports, temples in south America have been found containing ceremonial games where a leather ball (and sometimes a decapitated head) were kicked around into stone hoops. These games were played in front of crowds (who sat on large stone terraces). I think that constitutes a spectator sport."



i think you are missing the point of his article. he wrote it about....wait....ok that won't work, because it isn't about anything. he wrote that....paragraph....about how gaming will be broudcast on the same level as football and soccer. not about mexicans kicking heads around in front of their friends.

If we retrace several comments back to the original posts.

"Games like Football and Baseball have been around for centuries"



yeah, few people know that Ben Franklin had a mean .400 batting average when he was at his peak, and the Pilgrims had guys that could make 70 yard field goals.

In this post you made it clear in your opinion ball games did not exist for centuries which is totally untrue

i think you are missing the point of his article. he wrote it about....wait....ok that won't work, because it isn't about anything. he wrote that....paragraph....about how gaming will be broudcast on the same level as football and soccer. not about mexicans kicking heads around in front of their friends.

The whole point of my reply was to make that point, your comment was unsubstantiated and ignorant.

you are trying to win this argument by changing what I said (i think), and I will defeat thou by showing thine flawed logic (was that right?);

How exactly have I changed what you said. As I've said about 5 times, I'm disagreeing with part of your comment, and explaining why I disagree with it - It lacked facts.



You're also making stupid statements to break the credibility of my comments that have nothing to do with anything.

he wrote that....paragraph....about how gaming will be broudcast on the same level as football and soccer. not about mexicans kicking heads around in front of their friends.

Thats funny, I don't recall the article mentioning ball sports being non-existant 300 years ago.

pablo_m123 wrote..

narby you can't be loyal to counter-strike, because it's just a game!



say it to yourself! it even sounds dumb!



"I am loyal to counter-strike!"



the whole idea of being loyal is just so the losers who play 24/7 can feel as if they are doing something worth-while, and are part of something important.



counter-strike is something you do for fun, and so you can't be loyal to it; just like you can't be loyal to masturbation or eating pizza.



...you lose

I was starting to think you might actually have an ounce of intelligence in you. Sadly this comment is totally retarded.



Lets retrace our steps and go back to the dictionary again.



loy·al·ty Pronunciation Key (loil-t)

n. pl. loy·al·ties

The state or quality of being loyal. See Synonyms at fidelity.

A feeling or attitude of devoted attachment and affection. Often used in the plural: My loyalties lie with my family



A feeling or attitude of devoted attachment and affection.



Apparently people who play a lot of CS are said to have an attachment to the game, they show affection it because they like it, and enjoy playing it.

counter-strike is something you do for fun, and so you can't be loyal to it

I guess that makes the dictionary wrong then.

...you lose

I lose because you have no argument. You're saying you can't be loyal to a product when clearly you can. If I buy a car, and It has good milage and good customer service and years later you buy another because the first was a good buy you're said to have brand loyalty This is a marketing term, you should go look it up.

[NebZ]

/me sighs, this mailbag reminds me of when Counter-strike was fun D;



i want to whip out that deagle and go solo again ;(

[Zer0]

great article

[[wdt]tihkal]

I was really enjoying this debate/argument.



BTW, waiting anxiously for Pablo's reply.



-----------------------------------------------

why do almost all conversations on forums turn into flame wars.

I am almost positive for this response i will end up getting flamed.

[pablo_m123]

Edited by [user="4746"] @ [time="1031371747"]

I have proven you wrong so many times, and yet you still come back for more



"In this post you made it clear in your opinion ball games did not exist for centuries which is totally untrue"



I already said that the .400 and 70 yard field goal represent ball games as they exist today -- highly refined sources of entertainment for millions. I made this comparison because the whole point of his topic was that those kinds of sports have been around for centuries. But it is obvious that sports before the 20th century were crude matches that reached few people. Those sports ARE NOT the sports he is talking about.



"The whole point of my reply was to make that point, your comment was unsubstantiated and ignorant."



ok, I was refraining from any serious name-calling before, but if you want it dirty that's what you'll get. You obviously found my post hard to argue with, because you only attacked one part of it, and even that didn't work too well. You say my comment was ignorant, and yet you are the one who obviously did not understand what both me and the author were talking about.



here is an outline for you, taken from the article



1: Is Counter-Strike as a spectator sport with cash prizes plausible?



2: "Games like Football and Baseball have been around for centuries, and professional competition can take place because people have been training for it all their lives."



call me crazy, but professional competition has not been around for centuries. his problem is that he assumes all sports will have large amounts of spectators, even 400 years ago.



your problem is that you think we are talking about sports in general, when we are not. so any argument you have about british rugby or mexican head-kicking is irrelevant.



of course I'm expecting you to now yell out "WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER" and charge at me



edit:



wow he wrote more than i thought



ok here we go....



"Thats funny, I don't recall the article mentioning ball sports being non-existant 300 years ago."



i dont know what the hell you're trying to say there, so i won't bother



"Apparently people who play a lot of CS are said to have an attachment to the game, they show affection it because they like it, and enjoy playing it."



attachment is fine, loyalty is not.



lets think about it



"My loyalties lie with my family"

vs

"My loyalties lie with my Counter-Strike"



doesn't quite fit....



"You're saying you can't be loyal to a product when clearly you can."



that is what seperates you from me



i see cs as a game, you see it as a product



i guess all these people see cs as a product too, something to be produced for their consumption, like some kind of drug. if you want to think like that, then i guess i dont need to argue, because you are just as bad as the rest of them



i, however, see cs as a game to be enjoyed but not obsessed over. like any other form of entertainment. because if you do obsess over it, it turns into something called an ADDICTION, RETARD.

[NuclearTeddyBear]

Edited by [user="2179"] @ [time="1031371954"]

Looking at people like pablo post makes me realize how strong a tool self-deception really is.

pablo_m123

I have proven you wrong so many times, and yet you still come back for more.

I hardly think you've proven narby wrong at all.. you haven't really argued against his posts, you've just kind of acted like you're smarter(which you're clearly not) and you just keep changing your opinion, or what you say you said. Or something. I know he doesn't need me to tell you that you're wrong, he's definitely capable enough, but I just couldn't sit and read your posts and not say anything.



Note to self: make sure to add the end quote command at the end of the quote, not at the end of my comment.

[Jsunu]

Hey its great that you think loyalties means something greater than a video game pablo but they are just "YOUR OPINION" which doesn't automaticly mean its right.

[pablo_m123]

[BH]NuclearTeddyBear wrote..

Looking at people like pablo post makes me realize how strong a tool self-deception really is.

thanks teddy bear, i luv u 2!



"you haven't really argued against his posts, you've just kind of acted like you're smarter(which you're clearly not)"



hmmm well I have responded to every argument he has made; if you can find one i haven't gotten to yet please tell me. as for the whole "ima dumbass" thing, well what can i say to that other than fuck you? it is an opinion, and so I can't do much about it.



"and you just keep changing your opinion, or what you say you said"



actually no. I am restating my argument (im using that word too much) in the hopes that he will understand what I was saying.



"Or something. I know he doesn't need me to tell you that you're wrong, he's definitely capable enough, but I just couldn't sit and read your posts and not say anything."



ouch, teddy. well would you bless me with your opinion of the matter? or are you unwilling? I assure you I will admit it if I realize that I'm wrong. I see what narb is saying, and I am trying to make him see what I was saying, and you just seem to be flaming

[narby]

Edited by [user="3134"] @ [time="1031372751"]

You're watering down the facts to make your point look valid. Proven me wrong many times? List them.

"Games like Football and Baseball have been around for centuries"



yeah, few people know that Ben Franklin had a mean .400 batting average when he was at his peak, and the Pilgrims had guys that could make 70 yard field goals.



30 dmg

We're not arguing over the comparison between modern day sport and computer games. This has never been my point throughout this entire argument, yet you persist to make it so.

That quote says you think ballsports have not been around for more than 300 years.



THIS IS MY POINT. THEY HAVE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COMPUTER GAMES.



I'm attacking your comment, not the article.

You say my comment was ignorant, and yet you are the one who obviously did not understand what both me and the author were talking about.

Perhaps thats because i'm not arguing with the author.

I have proven you wrong so many times, and yet you still come back for more

Get off this high horse ``if I keep telling myself i'm the master of the universe it will come true'' trip, it's painful to keep seeing you kiss your own ass and try to convince yourself you've proved the world is still flat.

of course I'm expecting you to now yell out "WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER" and charge at me

Yes, as mouth put it ``perhaps if I call his bluff he won't attack me''



Welcome to 3rd grade

[pablo_m123]

CrazyNewbieGuy wrote..

Hey its great that you think loyalties means something greater than a video game pablo but they are just "YOUR OPINION" which doesn't automaticly mean its right.

my whole point is that it used in the wrong context.

[littleolme]

LMAO @ pablo!! You carry a fine argument, my friend! I'd debate with you anytime. Anyway, I think the author is talking about fanaticism, not loyalty. Come on, you don't have to give up your marriage (or relationship) with a partner, forget to feed your kids and neglect all your friends to be considered "loyal" (sorry pablo, lol) to a game, cause or sport. I've been playing strongly for a couple of years and off and on while it was in the beta stages, but I still have a wife to consider, a cat to feed, a career that I want to progress in and a social/family life. Does this make me "disloyal" to CS?? If you wish to put it in these terms, I think not.

I read an article (a joke, really) entitled "You know you play too much CS when..." and it included such activities as placing your alarm clock too high to reach in the morning, changing your legal name to include numbers and symbols, etc. While I found it amusing, I believe some actually come close to resembling the people suggested in the aforementioned article. If this defines you, I think you may need to seek help.

I'm not saying that people who play often in your free time are CS junkies (aka fanatics), just that if their number one priority in life is getting onto their favorite server or check their stats, etc, they may need to re-evaluate what's truly important to them. Even people that are "loyal" to something usually have time for other aspects of their life. You may notice a lot of people who neglect their wife, kids, friends and careers (or school work) because of a hobby turned obsession end up alone.

[Jsunu]

I dont see how it is used in the wrong context.. I may not be as "smart" as some people here but if I say ksharp is loyal to 3d wouldnt that be in the right context?? So if I say I was a loyal "fan" of CS wouldn't that be right as well?

[pablo_m123]

narby wrote..

You're watering down the facts to make your point look valid. Proven me wrong many times? List them.



We're not arguing over the comparison between modern day sport and computer games. This has never been my point throughout this entire argument, yet you persist to make it so.

That quote says you think ballsports have not been around for more than 300 years.



THIS IS MY POINT. THEY HAVE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COMPUTER GAMES.I'm attacking your comment, not the article.



Perhaps thats because i'm not arguing with the author.



Get off this high horse ``if I keep telling myself i'm the master of the universe it will come true'' trip, it's painful to keep seeing you kiss your own ass and try to convince yourself you've proved the world is still flat.



Yes, as mouth put it ``perhaps if I call his bluff he won't attack me''



Welcome to 3rd grade

"That quote says you think ballsports have not been around for more than 300 years."



where do I say that exactly?



"We're not arguing over the comparison between modern day sport and computer games"



but that is what I was talking about in that paragraph, like it or not



"You say my comment was ignorant, and yet you are the one who obviously did not understand what both me and the author were talking about.

Perhaps thats because i'm not arguing with the author."



are you admitting here that you didn't understand what he was talking about???



"it's painful to keep seeing you kiss your own ass and try to convince yourself you've proved the world is still flat."



you didn't understand the context of what I said, thus you are the idiot for starting a debate without knowing what the topic was



I'll stop the stupid "im the best" crap if it's annoying, but I have a feeling you were just using it to attack my character

[NuclearTeddyBear]

pablo_m123 wrote..

if you can find one i haven't gotten to yet please tell me. as for the whole "ima dumbass" thing, well what can i say to that other than fuck you?

Ok. Your sarcastic comment relating to Ben Frankling's batting average and the Pilgrims field goal kicker implies that you don't believe that games like football and baseball have been played for the past couple of hundred years. First of all, I think Exo was using some exaggeration when he said that they had been around for centuries, but that's beside the point.

I made this comparison because the whole point of his topic was that those kinds of sports have been around for centuries. But it is obvious that sports before the 20th century were crude matches that reached few people. Those sports ARE NOT the sports he is talking about.

I guess I don't really agree that he is referring to only spectator sports, since he isn't saying that gaming is a full-out spectator sport yet.



Another time when you obviously didn't make a an argument, at least one that made sense, against something narby said.

pablo_m123 wrote..

"Apparently people who play a lot of CS are said to have an attachment to the game, they show affection it because they like it, and enjoy playing it."



attachment is fine, loyalty is not.



lets think about it



"My loyalties lie with my family"

vs

"My loyalties lie with my Counter-Strike"



doesn't quite fit....



"You're saying you can't be loyal to a product when clearly you can."



that is what seperates you from me



i see cs as a game, you see it as a product



i guess all these people see cs as a product too, something to be produced for their consumption, like some kind of drug. if you want to think like that, then i guess i dont need to argue, because you are just as bad as the rest of them



i, however, see cs as a game to be enjoyed but not obsessed over. like any other form of entertainment. because if you do obsess over it, it turns into something called an ADDICTION, RETARD.

Does anyone else find this argument to be ridiculous? Not only does your brain work in a very strange way, it doesn't even work right. You can't possibly compare a loyalty to CS to a loyalty to your family. Just because there are different levels of loyalty doesn't mean you can say that you can't use the word in connection with a game based on one stupid analogy.



Example: I do not enjoy playing other CT/Terrorist based games, because I am loyal to Counter-Strike.



To say that this isn't true simply because you think that loyalty is something very deep and emotional is absurd.



And of course CS is a product. You can't just change the facts to fit your argument... I really could go on and on, but I've typed a novel already.

I see what narb is saying, and I am trying to make him see what I was saying, and you just seem to be flaming

Umm.. ok. How about this?

pablo_m123 wrote..

i, however, see cs as a game to be enjoyed but not obsessed over. like any other form of entertainment. because if you do obsess over it, it turns into something called an ADDICTION, RETARD.

That to was to narby.

pablo_m123 wrote..

well what can i say to that other than fuck you? it is an opinion, and so I can't do much about it.

Go look up "contradiction" in the dictionary, you might find it's meaning useful to you as you flame people in the future, at least that way the only negative thing about you will be your stupidity.

[narby]